So the best you can do to counter the point is to ignore it...
Is that all you an come up with? pppffffttt. I used it to illustrate how absurd HER argument was, not to reinforce mine...
got it!
The subject of the thread is about defining the killing of a viable fetus as murder due to their status under Roe and Casey. A discussion that has come about due to botched abortions that have resulted in murders that no-one in their right mind will attempt to define as anything but murder. And here's the rub, these fetus' were viable IN THE WOMB just a few short moments before they were murdered out of the womb. Had the procedures not been botched they would have been no less viable, and the law according to roe should protect them. Thats what Roe determined the state can do. Thats what the thread is about... so yeah, a woman who aborts a viable fetus as determined under roe and casey could be called (and charged) as a muderer.No I am not sinless, I call a spade a spade I do not white wash anything, Jeffery Dalmer dismembered human beings, he murdered them. The abortion doctor is paid by the mother to do the same thing. I am not PC, I wonder do you think there is any such thing as sin sin you do not have to say a sin is a sin or call it by another name?She was already sorry for her sins, Jesus did not say she did not have any sins. Which is what you seem to be doing, at a babies expense and womens expense.The adulteress, who according to the Law...was suppose to be killed for her sins, was FORGIVEN by Christ, before she was told to repent and sin no more....I repeat...she was forgiven BEFORE she was asked to repent....had you ever noticed that when reading this passage? Gosh, I love Christ! If all of us could only be more Christ like....
no one is calling evil good, at least not me, if that is what you are implying?
God formed Adam as well....but the Bible still says Adam did not have LIFE, until a breath was taken.
there is no arguing that a human's life begins at conception or pregnancy... according to all science...there is no question that this is a new baby to be, being formed, in its mother's womb imho...they just do not legally achieve person hood, with rights, until they are born according to our laws.
Truth is truth, yes it is....and what these women have done, is killed their unborn child....not murder....but carry on and say or act the way you do or want to....
I spoke out to you, as you say you are speaking out to those women who are aborting by calling them murderers and giving them no compassion....
btw what is the difference between you and those people who were getting ready to cast the first stone....? Are you sinless?
I sure am glad you are not God or Christ!
Now let me go count my blessings and give thanks to the Lord on that!
nope, I am not...you can call abortion a sin, and to me, it is a sin, and a sad one at that....
but YOU throwing the murderer word around so freely is quite disturbing....do you do this so you can entice some loony toon to commit murder themselves by shooting the doctors or girls in the abortion clinics on the basis that they are justly killing/murdering... murderers?
Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree. Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation. persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can. Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person. That however is neither here nor there in the topic of this thread which has more to do with the states interest in preserving the lives of "viable" fetus' and why they don't do so with the same laws they do for any other class of person.
That is absolutely false. From the moment of conception it is biologically a human being.
once again, "murder" is a specifically defined legal term. there are legitimate reasons to "kill" and we do so all the time... for food, for clothing, in self-defense, in defense of others and in defense of property. the same concept applies to saving a woman's life in the event she endures a pregnancy. if we can get that as an understanding, then we can move on.
i agree with you (bookmark this post, it may be a while before you see those words from me again) in that life does exist on a continuum from zygote through birth. that part of the basis for Roe v Wade which has so far been ignored throughout this thread (although i may have missed it) is that the Court did a balancing test. It inquired, and rightfully so, as to when the government had the right to intervene in contravention of the wishes of the individual. It held that at a certain point in the pregnancy, the obligation of government to protect prospective life outweighed the woman's right to govern her own body. That is the ONLY holding of Roe v Wade. Everything else is dicta... a purely intellectual discussion to guide future generations, but not bind them. So, given that life exists on a contunuum, it appears to me that nothing has occurred to vitiate the Court's holding.
Life exists in many forms... human beings, not so much... just as an egg, even if it is fertilized, is not a chicken.
*edit* a murder conviction requires a finding of mens rea. even the original languate of the bible does not say "thou shalt not kill". it says "thou shalt not murder".
Which is why, when I actually understood Roe a little more and when my opinions of the issue became more....moderated, shall we say, it turned out I actually agree with that aspect of Roe.
I know on these boards I am probably considered a member of the right, but I am not a member of the fanatical religous, no abortions EVER, right. I may find it immoral, but the biological facts are there are stages in a pregnancy where you're not killng what can biologically defined as a human being.
so are you.
And legally you are correct. Vibility is a fickle standard that changes with medical science (which seems a rather arbitrary thing to bas law on, but its what we got).
Unless the mother life is at risk and its a matter of self defence, they are all out of convenience.
none. prosecutors won't touch it, to radio active. They should, and they could, but they don't
no, its never happenned, the states are derilict in there responsibility to provide all persons with due process and equal protection. And sadly, will remain so.
people who decide to bash their kids in the head with a hammer have to live with that to... from inside a prison.
thats what every law does
until your moral decisions allow you to bring harm to others... then itsd not so much you.
and hiring a hit man to kill her husband is a choice between her and her hitman. So what?
yes, they should, but even more so, the states should.
happens every day
The ONLY part of roe that has any applicability in the law is the "viability" argument. The rest of it is meaningless tripe.
you mean pro choice and anti-choice. language is important.
i agree in part. but the "viability" argument was only a part of the decision and was badly written... horribly written actually.
the balancing test is far more important.
and the fact that there is a contiuum of belief on the issue, is settled by the determination of roe as a balancing of issues. and no one should be making those moral judgments for anyone else... much less the government.
Really? What's the practical difference then? If jay-walking is technically a crime, but in a small podunk town it is perfectly acceptable and everyone knows it is never enforced, is it still a crime? If your answer is yes because there is still technically a law for it, then I must ask what you think laws actually are.
That's actually not true at all. If an embryo implants, and it is removed soon thereafter, it can still be held in status. As I stated earlier, people who don't really understand the biology always tend to draw these arbitrary lines in the sand, when no such differentiation exists.
And what comprises "human being?"
